. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Introduction: If Iowa Democrats hope to win the governorship in 2018, their strategy needs to change. Most recently, their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, carried only 6 of Iowa's 99 counties. In 2014 it was even worse. Their last candidate for governor, Jack Hatch, carried only one county, Johnson -- known to Iowans in the western part of the state as "the People's Republic of Johnson County."
Whoever gets the nod in the Democrats' June 5 primary (or June 16 convention) will have the support of virtually all the state's Democrats, and access to the necessary money, for the general election on November 6. Thus, the issue for Democrats voting in the primary really ought to be, not who can win the primary, but who has the best possibility of winning the general election. Iowans registered as Republicans have an edge over the number of Democrats. But the largest political party by far is the "No Party" party, the independents. Whoever is chosen ought to be able to get the majority of votes from Hillary's 6 counties. The question is who can pile up the most votes in the other 93 counties.
Among the five candidates, my intuition, after a lifetime of politics, is that John Norris would do the best of the five in those 93 counties.
But there is a more powerful reason, almost unrelated to partisan politics, why Democrats Should Choose Norris. And that is the subject of this piece in the Press-Citizen.
N.J.
Democrats Should Choose Norris
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 23, 2018, p. 7A
Why do you make primary choices? How do you choose from six quality governor candidates?
Politically? Win-at-any-cost? Even so, winners of primaries aren’t always best for general elections.
The best fundraiser? Party officer who’s “earned it”? One with most “Elvis”? Youngest? Oldest? Tallest? Best looking?
Looking for comfort, compatibility? Someone your age, gender, socio-economic class, race, religion? Policy positions closest to yours?
Understandable, after this legislative year, for a Democrat to focus on a winning governor and House candidates.
But once they’re there? Being a wise, compassionate, effective, politically savvy, accomplished governor requires very different qualities and skills from those of a winning candidate.
What are they?
For an Iowa governor: someone with whom Iowa farmers are comfortable; experience in the governor's office and Iowa agencies; party leadership; understanding Iowa's relationship to federal government, international markets and organizations
By these standards? It’s John Norris, hands down. He was a fifth-generation farm boy in southwest Iowa; been chief of staff to an Iowa governor, federal cabinet member, and congressman; chair of Iowa's Utilities Board and Iowa Democratic Party; presidential appointee to federal and United Nations' agencies; worked with a U.S. senator. Experienced at winning, and one fine guy.
No, I don't mean what I now understand to be her positions regarding tax cuts and federal deficits, energy policy, abortion (valuing the life of a fetus over the life of a mother), teaching creationism in the schools, utilization of earmarks, guns, global warming, gay marriage and civil unions, relying on abstinence as a birth control method in reducing teen pregnancy -- among others. I suspect were we to spend an evening "vetting" each others' positions on issues we'd find relatively little we agree on. (I've said the same, and more, about Governor Mike Huckabee. Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part II. Candidates/Governor Mike Huckabee. I really like Mike Huckabee, and his opening last evening was another demonstration of one of the reasons why.)
Nor do I mean that I liked "her" speech.
Don't get me wrong. It was a great speech (though I'm not fond of substituting snide attacks on one's opponent for a discussion of the issues). I mean it probably served well the Republican campaign. Matthew Scully, who wrote it, is a master wordsmith. After all he wrote President George W. Bush's first four State of the Union messages, among other political writing over the years. Who better to write the speeches and talking points for "Bush's third term"? I just mean it wasn't "her speech." (For a kind of "truth squad" evaluation of some of the charges see, Jim Kuhnhenn, "Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention," Associated Press/Yahoo! News, September 3, 2008, 11:48 p.m. ET.)
That's certainly not a criticism of Governor Palin. Senator Obama is not unfamiliar with the teleprompter. And Senator McCain's constant looking down at notes only draws attention to the fact he's uttering someone else's words as well as significantly impairing his effectiveness as a speaker. Public officials, especially during a campaign sometimes requiring ten appearances a day, can be excused for relying on speech writers. And she, Senator McCain -- indeed the entire Republican Party -- had an enormous amount riding on it being a good performance.
Which it was. Being able to deliver a speech not entirely one's own to a very large crowd -- persuasively, emotionally, and with humor -- is an ability not unrelated to one's effectiveness as president. I thought she really "sold the lines," as we say, and did everything she was called upon to do.
Things had, after all, moved rather rapidly -- for her, the media, and the rest of the nation. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Palin Disclosures Raise Questions On Vetting,"New York Times, September 1, 2008 ("Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin."). (I have a memory of having read, or heard, somewhere that the Times, challenged by the McCain campaign on this story, is standing by it.)
So she was coached on the delivery. I suspect that wasn't the first time that has occurred either.
Anticipating the importance of Palin's debut before a national audience, McCain speechwriter Matthew Scully spent days working on the speech, and she rehearsed it repeatedly as McCain aides offered coaching. Before she delivered it, they began an all-out effort to defend her and take the offensive against her critics, mobilizing surrogates to tell her story and accusing journalists of creating a "faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee."
And here's the Times' take: "The speech was the first public emergence for Ms. Palin since arriving here Sunday, two days after Mr. McCain named her as his running mate. Ms. Palin has spent her time in a hotel suite with her husband, Todd, and their five children preparing for her speech and the questions on foreign policy, national security and family matters that she will face from the news media when the McCain campaign makes her available to reporters. . . ." Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party,"New York Times, September 4, 2008.
I used to like Bill Clinton, and stopped as a result of his campaign tactics against Senator Obama. The same thing could happen with my reactions to Governor Palin if she keeps up the ad hominum attacks on Obama and continues to avoid issues. Understand, I'd never vote for her, and frankly the thought of her having to walk into the oval office alone scares me a little. But I still like her. She's got spunk. She's articulate (especially when permitted to speak without scripts and coaches). She's attractive. And she's going to be appealing to a lot of voters, I think.
Aside from partisanship, and aside from the chattering classes and policy wonks, the reactions to her are going to turn on folks comfort zone -- as they did for me in my congressional primary race. I always felt those who voted for me, and those who preferred someone else (numbers that, by my count, differed by only six), both saw me accurately. Those who voted for me liked the idea of someone who (at that time only) had a modest measure of celebrity, contacts in Hollywood (some of whom came to the district to help with the campaign), Washington and the financial community in New York that could be drawn upon to help the District (my memory -- often faulty -- is that the Wall Street Journal reported at one point that I had more up front money from contributors, including Republicans, than any other newcomer running for Congress that year). They thought someone like that was just what the district needed. Young professionals, including even some Republicans, were attracted to that. On the other hand, there were slightly more who found that discomforting, something they found it hard to relate to. They preferred someone more like their neighbor down the road. Not incidentally, after the primaries were over, and the general election was held, the person they ended up choosing was a former state legislator, and now our own Iowa Senator, Chuck Grassley.
I think the choice between Palin and Obama is going to be like that. Both will be perceived relatively accurately by voters. Many -- whether it turns out to be "most" will decide who ends up in the White House -- will feel much more comfortable with what they see in Governor Palin. They'll like what I like about her -- and either also like her ideology and policy positions, or be unaware of what they are. Others will be more comfortable with what they see in Obama, what he represents (in every sense), and their attraction to Michelle as well.
Last evening on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," former Speaker Newt Gingrich was the guest. Stewart noted that some Republicans are arguing that Palin has foreign policy credentials because Alaska is close to Russia. Gingrich responded that when comparing the executive experience of Palin to that of Obama and Biden "You can't find a single executive decision that either has made in their entire career." To which Stewart responded that the same would have to be said about McCain -- to which Gingrich candidly acknowledged, "That's exactly right." (The exchange occurs at roughly 3:30-4:00 minutes into the interview.)
Similarly, Fred Thompson acknowledged last evening during his speech at the Convention, "Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president." (He went on to say, "but it does reveal character.") It's something the McCain campaign needs to consider.
Senator Joe Biden once said of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, "Rudy Giuliani, probably the most under-qualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency . . . I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else!"
The McCain campaign risks a similar attack when it brings every question back to McCain's POW status. ("How many homes does he have? Seven? You forgot to count the 'Hanoi Hilton.'") Military service should be honored; and it's certainly not irrelevant to a president's understanding of war and defense budgets. But it's not even the equivalent of having served as Secretary of Defense, let alone president. Fred Thompson's right; it doesn't qualify someone to be "commander-in-chief," or to deal with the other responsibilities of the U.S. president. In fact, McCain's military service is demeaned by making more of it than is credible.
I've written at some length about the relevance of "experience" to the responsibilities of a president, what we should mean by "experience" in that context, and how, why and when it can appropriately be used, and with what weight, in comparing the qualifications of candidates for office prior to selecting the one you want to support. Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part III. Experience. So I'm not going to repeat all of that here beyond this summary.
I do not think that "experience," however defined, is necessarily the most important quality to weigh in picking a candidate. I think raw intelligence, a liberal arts education from a good, though not necessarily most prestigious and expensive school (that is, at least a smattering of knowledge about a wide range of subjects), world travel (if observant and open to new experiences), the capacity of "a quick study" (that is, while knowing one's limitations, the ability to quickly pick up enough understanding of a new subject to ask the most appropriate questions of those who are more knowledgeable), a judicious mind (that is, the ability to base decisions on data and science rather than ideology, and to hold judgments in abeyance without knee-jerk conclusions until having heard all sides), a genuine liking for people and the capacity for empathy and understanding of their lives and challenges, and at least a dollop of "common sense-wisdom-judgment." Of course a basic honesty, commitment to transparency in government, ethical and moral sense -- and since the president is, above all else, the nation's personnel director, an ability to judge people, and to choose those who will make the president look good because they are better than the president, rather than because, by comparison, the president is clearly better than them.
So I can imagine someone with virtually no "experience" in the sense we talk about it nonetheless not only being "qualified" to be president, but being more qualified than someone with superior "experience." Vice President Dick Cheney may be one of the best examples from among many. After all he had an understanding of White House operations as a result of having served as President Ford's White House Chief of Staff, he had the legislative experience, and knowledge of the Congress, from six terms in the House and his service as minority Whip, his experience with the federal executive branch included having served as President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense (which also provided him some understanding and "experience" with regard to national defense), and his experience at administration/management of large institutions included, in addition to Secretary of Defense, having served as CEO of Halliburton. Notwithstanding all of that "experience," I suspect that there are some Republicans, as well as the Democrats, who would find him lacking on the other qualities just enumerated.
If one is to consider the "experience to be president," "passing the commander-in-chief" test, ability to handle that "3:00 a.m. phone call," what's most relevant, in my view, is a breadth of experience. What city, county and state government are like -- especially in their relations with the federal. The various branches of federal government -- cabinet departments, independent administrative agencies, the judiciary, the Senate and House, and the White House. Foreign relations experience (as distinguished from foreign policy experience, as Secretary of State (or other high position in the Department), UN ambassador, work with the World Bank or other international organization, or ambassador to any country, work on negotiating treaties, and so forth. An understanding of the military that comes, not just from service (which is also of value), but from having been National Security Adviser, Secretary of Defense (or other high position in the Department), Director of the CIA, and so forth. Finally (or perhaps first), is managerial/administrative experience. Not the experience of overseeing a senator's office staff, or McCain's time as a squadron commander, or any other administrative position that's pretty "hands-on," where you know and work directly with those you are supervising. But the experience of leading, of administering, an institution with thousands of employees, and tens of thousands of other stakeholders, where you simply out of necessity must use means other than personal contact with everyone (such as CEO of a major corporation, one of our nation's largest universities, or hospitals, governor of a state, mayor of a big city -- as well as federal cabinet, or even sub-cabinet, positions).
Measured by these standards none of the senators prominent in this year's primaries, and ultimately selected -- Senators McCain, Obama, Biden and Clinton -- can offer any "experience" other than legislative, and that, for three of them, limited to the U.S. Senate. (Ironically, Senator Obama can claim the most, by these standards, because he has gained some insight into state-federal relations by having served in a state legislature as well as the Senate.) All of which raises the question (the question, not the irrefutable answer) of the extent to which even this very limited (in terms of breadth) "stovepipe" experience is an example of the difference between "twenty-five years' experience, and one year's experience twenty-five times."
And I might add, by these standards, Governor Palin trumps them all -- including, as Speaker Gingrich conceded last evening -- her own presidential running mate, John McCain. However small the town, however few people live in Alaska, however short the time she's served as mayor and governor, she does have "experience" that none of the four senators do.
Does that mean I think she's the most qualified to be president? Absolutely not. The notion of her having to move into the oval office sometime in 2009 frightens me. I would feel much more comfortable with Senator Biden having to assume that role -- notwithstanding the fact he's never been a mayor or a governor.
So who else might McCain have picked? Until yesterday the thought never crossed my mind (I'm embarrassed to confess, since I should have thought of it), but I'm suddenly encountering more and more people who are now asking me, "Don't you think Dr. Condoleezza Rice would have been a more sensible choice?" The only downside I see to that idea would be her ties to the Bush Administration. Aside from that I think she'd be dynamite. Can you imagine the contrast between her and Governor Palin going toe-to-toe with Biden over foreign policy?
Well, we're off and running. Exactly two months from today we'll find out what this multi-billion-dollar campaign has produced.
March 30, 2008, 7:20 a.m.; March 31, 2008, 9:00 a.m. [clarification at bottom of entry]
Politics: Assessing Candidates' "Experience"
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette
March 30, 2008, p. A9
There’s little significant difference between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as lawyers who are well educated, thoughtful, widely informed and fully capable of formulating proposals on numerous topics. Both are articulate, though Obama has the charisma advantage.
But the experience qualifying someone to be president requires a lot more than having been married to one, proposing good ideas or world travel.
As someone who has served during the administrations of three presidents, I believe the presidency is one of the most complex administrative jobs imaginable.
There’s no perfect, qualifying “experience.” But two things can help.
One is experience at administering large institutions: a federal cabinet-level department, a state government, military branch, major university or corporation.
The other is the understanding and rapport earned by having worked in institutions with which a president must relate: city, county and state government; the federal executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches; international organizations and embassies; labor unions and Wall Street, among others.
By these standards both Democrats and Sen. John McCain are unimpressive.
None has served as mayor or governor; none has headed a cabinet department; none has helped administer the Pentagon or CIA; none has worked for international organizations, been ambassador to the United Nations or a foreign country; none has been a union officer or corporate CEO. None has headed delegations negotiating with foreign governments over trade agreements, release of hostages or treaties.
Each has the “legislative experience” of making speeches and signing bills, though none as House speaker or Senate leader. McCain has 25 years in the U.S. House and Senate, Obama 12 years in the Illinois and U.S. senates and Clinton the least with eight years in the U.S. Senate.
McCain and Obama have little to no administrative experience, and Clinton’s record is spare and negative.
Her Web site acknowledges her health care efforts “did not succeed,” her administration of the campaign has been charitably characterized as “a disaster” and critics say she’s grossly exaggerating her “experience” and significance of contributions to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and peace in Ireland and Kosovo.
By contrast, Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign chairman, David Wilhelm, said, “I know organizational excellence when I see it” and characterizes Obama’s campaign as “a model.” Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Clinton supporter, said Obama has administered his campaign “with real discipline.”
Compare these candidates’ “experience” with that of Gov. Bill Richardson: 15 years’ legislative experience in the U.S. House, understanding of state government from two terms as governor and of federal government from the Department of Energy, the significant administrative experience as a governor and cabinet secretary and the international perspective of a former U.N. ambassador. His international accomplishments, including successful hostage negotiations with Saddam Hussein and others, inspired five Nobel Peace Prize nominations.
[As political junkies may recall, Governor Richardson's experience was creatively made the subject of one of his early commercials that attracted a lot of attention and boosted his support early on -- though not enough to keep him in the race -- with its final line from a job interviewer: "So, what makes you think you can be president?"
I’m not suggesting a Richardson write-in campaign. But his is the kind of resume that would provide legitimate support for a presidential candidate’s claims to being more experienced — “tested” and “ready from day one” — than any of the three now running.
That doesn’t mean any of the three is unqualified to be president or is inadequately experienced. It just means it’s a bit disingenuous for them to argue their experience makes them more qualified than the others.
As former State Department Policy Planning Director Greg Craig has said: “When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed ‘the commander in chief test’ is simply not supported by her record.”
McCain and Obama have life experiences no less valuable that those of Clinton. McCain was a POW. Obama’s community organizing background gives him a unique citizen-empowerment, government-from-the-bottomup-not-top-down, approach to the presidency.
All are qualified; none is uniquely “experienced.” Clinton loses credibility by suggesting otherwise. _______________ Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City, a three-time presidential appointee and one-time congressional candidate, maintains http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
[Prior blog entries regarding candidates "experience" include,
March 31: State29 has commented regarding this column that "Nicholas Johnson has an Op Ed . . . about the kind of 'experience' a Presidential candidate should have. He isn't impressed with any of the choices on either side of the aisle, and has a bit of a longing for Bill Richardson." State29, "Experience, Schmerience," March 30, 2008. Because State29 is nothing if not perceptive and a close reader, I suspect others may have drawn these conclusions as well.
So, to clarify:
1. I intended one message and one message only in this column. It's contained in the concluding two sentences: "All [Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain] are qualified; none is uniquely 'experienced.' Clinton loses credibility by suggesting otherwise." In short, it was not that "he isn't impressed with any of the choices on either side of the aisle." It was simply that to the extent Senator Clinton (or anyone else) thinks "experience" is relevant to "qualifications" the differences between the "experience" of the three are so insignificant that "Clinton loses credibility" by trying to make the case that she should be the preferred candidate because the experience she has had is so much greater than that of the other two.
2. While I do think the kinds of experience I mention in this column are useful for a president, I wouldn't necessarily argue that a president "should have" them. (a) For starters, few if any candidates would be able to have all the categories of experience I mention. (b) There are certainly many examples of presidents with one or more of those categories of experience who have made a mess of things -- our current president (with experience as a governor) included. (c) Similarly, there are good things that can be said about presidents whose predominant experience was as a U.S. senator: Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
3. To the extent I do think "experience" relevant to "qualifications" it the breadth of experience that I find relevant -- for the reasons listed in the column.
4. I wouldn't say "he isn't impressed" with any of the three. I expressly said, "All are qualified." It's just that, to the extent I have enthusiasm for any one or more of them, that enthusiasm comes from "qualifications" other than what's reflected from their breadth of experience.
5. Nor would I say that I have a "longing" for Governor Bill Richardson. I was referring to him, in this context, simply as an illustration, an example, of a candidate who does have a breadth of experience -- "that's what a breadth of experience looks like" -- by way of contrasting his experience with the relative lack of a breadth of experience on the part of Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain. (On the other hand, I would clearly include Richardson among those candidates I would find "qualified," and one whose personal manner made him one of my favorites with whom to spend time.)
It doesn't speak well of my writing, I know, to have to write a second column to explain the first. But I thought it worthwhile to try to clear up my mis-communications. Hopefully, this has done that -- rather than just make it worse.
President George Bush has characterized himself a "compassionate conservative." However appropriately you may think that label applies to our president, we've had some evidence recently that the phrase, compassionate conservative, is not the oxymoron many Democrats believe it to be.
As general semanticists were trying to get us to understand during the latter half of the Twentieth Century, much of what we see and hear, and virtually all of what we say, reveals far more about what is going on inside that electro-chemical soup we call our brains than anything going on in the "real world" of space-time events "out there."
I was reminded of this the other day when I read the comments of Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Mike Huckabee regarding Senator Barack Obama's former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
As I say, neither comment tells us much, if anything, about Rev. Wright. Both comments tell us volumes about the contrasts between Clinton and Huckabee.
First, here is an excerpt from the story about Clinton's reaction:
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking for the first time directly about the association between the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Barack Obama, said 'getting up and moving' would have been the right response to hearing the preacher's fiery sermons.
Wright 'would not have been my pastor,' Clinton said during an interview with the conservative editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, whose endorsement she is seeking. 'You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend,' she said."
"Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could, and I agree, it's a very historic speech [Barack Obama, "A More Perfect Union," March 18, 2008]. . . . He made the point and I think it's a valid one. That you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama, anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements."
"I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack . . . I'm probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you. We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie; you have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant and you can't sit out there with everyone else; there's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office; here's where you sit on the bus.
"And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment and you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me."
(Governor Huckabee earlier earned my once-every-four-years "if I had to pick a Republican who would it be?" award: Nicholas Johnson, "It's Huckabee," July 24, 2007 -- for many of the same reasons reflected in these quotes.)
Not incidentally, from Jackson's report Senator John McCain's reaction also spoke well of McCain: "John McCain, the assured Republican nominee resisted the attempt by FOX News's Sean Hannity to whip Wright's remarks into a pyre for Obama. McCain said coolly, 'I do know Senator Obama. He does not share those views . . . I've had endorsements of some people that I didn't share their views . . . My life has been one of reconciliation. . . .'"
In short, what we ought to be looking for are neither "compassionate conservatives" or "compassionate liberals," rather the quality of "compassionate maturity" in all of our candidates.
Yesterday [March 26] Tung Yin ("The Yin Blog") turned Senator Clinton's claims on her husband:
Experience to be President
If Hillary Clinton's main claim to the Democratic nomination over Barack Obama is her greater "experience" (in what?), then can we safely assume that she also believes that the country made a mistake in electing her husband in 1992?
After all, Bill Clinton had only been governor of a small state, while his opponent:
(1) was the sitting President of the United States -- itself no doubt the best experience for being President of the United States;
(2) had been a United States Ambassador to the United Nations;
(3) had headed the Central Intelligence Agency; and
(4) had served two terms as the Vice President of the United States -- a position at least comparable to Senator Clinton's eight years as the First Lady.
If you want to talk about experience, George H.W. Bush's record dwarfed Bill Clinton's . . . .
What Tung Yin kindly does not point out is that, however little experience Bill Clinton may have had to be president -- especially compared to that of the first President Bush or, I would add, Governor Bill Richardson -- it significantly exceeded that which Senator Clinton now has (insofar as her husband had at least the public administration experience, and useful knowledge of federal-state relations, that came from having been a governor).
When I earlier wrote here that "Hillary Makes Up 'Experience'" there was already plenty of evidence of her at best "embellishing" her credentials, and at worse flat out lying about them: her responsibility for SCHIP, helping to "bring peace to Northern Ireland," and the assertion that "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." Each claim has been essentially refuted by those who were there and were responsible. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Hillary Makes Up 'Experience,'" March 14, 21, 2008.
Once 11,000 pages of her White House schedules were made public it turned out there was little if anything there to support claims she was responsible for major governmental policies or decisions. (After going through them, the Washington Post's reporters wrote:
"While Clinton's advertisements have boasted that she is best prepared for a 3 a.m. crisis phone call, the schedules contain no evidence that Clinton was at the table during major national security decisions. They do not list her as attending National Security Council meetings or joining briefings in the Situation Room. She did not have a national security clearance. And the documents make clear that at moments of major crisis, Clinton was often busy with her own agenda."
Note that I have not asserted that either Senator Obama or McCain has had more experience of the kind Senator Clinton claims to justify her assertion that she passes "the commander-in-chief test." In fact, the three of them are all essentially equally lacking when it comes to the kinds of "experience" that might be relevant to the presidency. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Hillary's Lack of Qualifications," March 8, 10, 11, 12, 2008. My point is simply that there is no justification for her claim that she has more experience than either of them.
Senator Obama has not made "presidential experience" a major part of his campaign. She has. And that's her problem.
Any misrepresentation about one's resume, degrees, certification, or experience is problematical. But once a candidate for public office campaigns that he or she should be preferred because their extensive experience makes them more qualified for the job than their opponents, and "experience" is the centerpiece of their campaign, refusals to explain, and provide details regarding the nature of that "35 years of experience," or evidence that the claims are contradicted by the data, can be serious indeed.
Now comes a whopper. Ann Sanner, "Clinton 'Misspoke' About '96 Bosnia Trip,"Washington Post, March 25, 2008 ("Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she 'misspoke' last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996. She later characterized the episode as a 'misstatement' and a 'minor blip.'").
Sanner reports that Senator Clinton earlier this month said, "'I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.'" Called on it yesterday [March 24] Clinton responded, "'I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,' she said."
Sanner reports that "According to an Associated Press story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on the trip. And one of her companions, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire."
This would have been dismissed as a "he-said-she-said" -- until videotape of her actual arrival started circulating on the Internet and ultimately was used by CBS. Here it is:
March 14, 2008, 8:45 p.m., 9:40 p.m.; March 21, 2008, 7:30 a.m.
[Add-item, March 21: An update today on this topic is both balanced and consistent with what I reported earlier. Peter Baker and Karen DeYoung, "Clinton's Experience Is Debated; While Not a Foreign Crisis Player, She Carried U.S. Message,"Washington Post, March 21, 2008, p. A6 ("While Clinton's advertisements have boasted that she is best prepared for a 3 a.m. crisis phone call, the schedules contain no evidence that Clinton was at the table during major national security decisions. They do not list her as attending National Security Council meetings or joining briefings in the Situation Room. She did not have a national security clearance. And the documents make clear that at moments of major crisis, Clinton was often busy with her own agenda.")]
Senator Clinton's Claims of Credit for Children's Health Care Challenged
I have written earlier of Hillary Clinton's "lack of qualifications" generally, notwithstanding her very general and unsupported assertions of "35 years of experience" and "you know my record." [Nicholas Johnson, "Hillary's Lack of Qualifications," March 8-12, 2008.] Now it turns out that some of the "experience" she specifically claims may be at best wildly exaggerated, and at worst just flat wrong.
The Boston Globe reports today [March 14] that those who were responsible for SCHIP (children's health care) are irritated by, and factually refuting, Senator Hillary Clinton's campaigning on, and repeatedly taking credit for, the program the White House actually opposed while she was living there. Susan Milligan, "Clinton Role in Health Program Disputed,"The Boston Globe, March 14, 2008. (Candidate Clinton's Web site says that, as First Lady, "She was instrumental in designing and championing" the program.)
Rather than summarize or comment about the Globe's story, I'll just provide some brief excerpts and let them speak for themselves.
This is apparently something of a pattern for Senator Hillary Clinton. Following the Globe story are some excerpts from Time magazine's take on two additional examples of her exaggerating her "accomplishments" in Ireland and Kosovo.
# # #
Clinton Role in Health Program Disputed
By Susan Milligan
The Boston Globe
March 14, 2008
WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.
In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.
But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah . . .. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.
"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."
. . . "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No . . .."
. . . Hatch, a longtime Kennedy friend, said he didn't want to criticize Clinton, but felt that the record should be set straight about how the SCHIP program was developed. . . .
[P]rivately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming over what they see as Clinton's exaggeration of her role in developing SCHIP, including her campaign ads claiming she "helped create" the program. The irritation has grown since Nov. 1, when Clinton . . . missed a Senate vote to extend the SCHIP program . . ..
Kennedy said he patterned the SCHIP plan on a similar program Massachusetts had approved in 1996. Kennedy's account was backed up by two Bay State healthcare advocates who met with Kennedy in Boston to discuss the possibility of taking the idea nationwide: Dr. Barry Zuckerman, director of pediatrics at Boston Medical Center, and John McDonough, then a Democratic state legislator and now the executive director of Health Care for All, a healthcare advocacy group.
. . . McDonough, a Democrat who has not endorsed a presidential candidate, also said it was Kennedy who developed the SCHIP idea after that meeting. "I don't recall any signs of Mrs. Clinton's engagement," McDonough said. "[I]t . . . is demonstrably not the case" that she was driving the effort, he said.
After meeting Zuckerman and McDonough, Kennedy sought out Hatch, and the two worked on the bill together, offering it as an amendment to a budget resolution. But President Clinton - much to the surprise and anger of Kennedy - lobbied Democratic lawmakers to oppose the Hatch-Kennedy amendment, the lawmakers and staff members said.
"It was a bipartisan bill. I don't remember the role of the White House," said Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who has not endorsed a candidate in the presidential race and who was the chief Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which deals with health matters. "It did not originate at the White House."
In her race to win the democratic nomination against a first-term Senator from Illinois, Hillary Clinton has put the criterion of experience front and center. She often references what she says is 35 years of work that qualifies her to run the country. And the most important achievements Clinton cites are the ones she claims from her years as First Lady . . ..
Northern Ireland
WHAT SHE SAYS:
On the campaign trail, Clinton has claimed she "helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland" in the 1990s.
. . . Her involvement was more about generating public and private support for peace talks in the months leading up to that agreement.
It's a key distinction. . . .
[S]everal diplomatic sources who worked on the peace talks say that the women's groups were not nearly as pivotal to the process as Hillary's backers maintain. And Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, former First Minister of Northern Ireland, told Britain's Daily Telegraph that Clinton was not involved in the process and her claims to have played a direct role were "a wee bit silly."
. . .Jean Kennedy Smith, former ambassador to Ireland, referring to a women's organization in the country [said], "But as far as anything political went, there was nothing as far as I know, nothing to do with negotiations" [noting that] the process was well under way by the time Clinton got involved.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Clinton played a role in hearing the concerns of Irish women left out of the peace process, . . .. But that does not mean she rolled up her sleeves and conducted or led the talks that resulted in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
Macedonia Refugees
WHAT SHE SAYS:
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," Clinton has asserted when asked to identify an example of her foreign policy experience.
. . . When Clinton arrived in the middle of the situation in that May, diplomats on the ground expected an ineffectual high-profile visit. But . . . Clinton visited refugees in camps on the border and held talks with the Macedonian leadership.
When the Prime Minister complained about American companies terminating textile contracts with local firms, Clinton promised to urge the businesses to change course. . . .
THE BOTTOM LINE: In the case of Macedonia, Clinton engaged in personal diplomacy that brought about change. But securing the return of American business partners is not the same as the opening of borders to thousands of refugees. That accomplishment was a result of broader U.S. and European efforts during the war.
March 8, 2008, 11:00 a.m., 3:44, 8:41 p.m.; March 10, 2008, 2:00 p.m.; March 11, 2008, 6:15 p.m.; March 12, 2008, 7:00 a.m.
Hillary's Experience? What experience?
(For a lighthearted "Saturday Night Live" take on these issues March 8 see the video at the end of this blog entry -- where you will also find the results from Wyoming and Mississippi.)
There's been a lot of talk during the Democratic Party's primaries and caucuses about the "experience" and "qualifications" of the candidates.
Senator Hillary Clinton recently surrounded herself with former military officers and American flags and simply proclaimed that both she and Senator John McCain had the experience and qualifications to be "commander-in-chief" -- by which she clearly meant the ability to deal appropriately with another terrorist attack or other domestic emergency, or to take the country into a war that would be professionally conducted and decisively won.
About the same time her campaign was running this "3:00 a.m. phone call" political commercial -- showing sleeping children, with an anxious parent fearful for their safety, the commercial asks in effect, "Who do you want in the White House dealing with emergencies of sufficient seriousness that the president must be awakened at 3:00 a.m. to deal with them?" and then closes with a shot of Senator Clinton talking on the phone. (This is the commercial spoofed in the "Saturday Night Live" video.)
I won't comment on the appropriateness of conducting a campaign based on fear -- as President Bush and Vice President Cheney have done with 9/11 and their justifications for starting, and continuing, a war in Iraq. Nor will I dwell on the wisdom of her building up Senator McCain in her effort to contend that she is just as qualified as he is. My point for now is merely the "experience" factor.
For when the Clinton campaign was pressed to provide even one example of her ever having been confronted with a situation remotely similar to what was suggested by the "3:00 a.m. phone call" commercial her campaign spokespersons were, of course, unable to do so.
Not only has she provided little more than her own assertions for the proposition that she is "ready," and "tested," and "experienced," and "qualified" to be "commander-in-chief," her attacks on Senator Obama are equally devoid of support.
She asserts that while she and Senator McCain have the qualifications to be commander-in-chief all that Senator Obama has is a speech in 2002.
This is not the only context in which she has attacked his "lack of experience," ignored the existence of, and substance in, the long list of policy positions on his Web site, or endeavored to trivialize the significance of his charisma, the crowds he has attracted (not to mention the delegate lead he has amassed), the new voters he has potentially brought into the Democratic Party camp, and the education, experience, and philosophical foundations on which he has drawn to bring this about.
There is a hearty irony to her attempt to contrast her "experience" with his.
Don't take my word for it. Read her own words on her Web site. Under "Hillary" the most relevant portions are "Mother & Advocate," "First Lady," and "U.S. Senator." As you read through this material you can't help but be impressed (or depressed) with her almost total absence of administrative experience, and the extent to which her claimed "experience" is precisely what she criticizes in that of Senator Obama: speeches, writing, and "advocacy."
Here are some illustrative excerpts.
"Hillary went to Wellesley College, where she was chosen by her classmates to be the first-ever student commencement speaker. [That's the very first sentence.] . . . Next came Yale Law School, where Hillary . . . began her decades of work as an advocate for children and families. As a law student, Hillary . . . worked on some of the earliest studies . . .. When Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas, Hillary continued to advocate for children . . .. She . . . played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues . . ..
[As First Lady.] When her husband was elected President in 1992, Hillary's work as a champion for women was recognized . . .. She traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women . . .. In the White House, Hillary led efforts to . . .. She helped launch . . .. Thanks in part to her efforts, . . .. As everyone knows, Hillary's fight for universal health coverage did not succeed. But her commitment to health care for every American has never wavered. She was instrumental in . . .. Hillary's 1995 book It Takes A Village, . . . became an international best seller. . . . Hillary's autobiography, Living History, was also a best seller.
[As U.S. Senator.] In 2000, Hillary was elected to the United States Senate [and] . . . continued her advocacy for children and families . . .. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary worked with her colleagues . . .. She fought to provide . . .. And she continues to work for . . .. She is . . . working to see that . . .. She has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan . . .. She has learned first-hand the challenges . . .. Hillary passed legislation . . .. She is an original sponsor of legislation that . . .. She has introduced legislation to . . .. She has supported a variety of . . .. She helped pass legislation that . . .. She has championed legislation to . . .. In the Senate, Hillary has not wavered in her work to . . .. She worked to . . .. She authored . . .. She sponsored legislation . . .. [She] is now leading the fight for . . .. Her strong advocacy for children continues in the Senate. Some of Hillary's proudest achievements have been her . . . legislation . . ., and her legislation to . . .. She has also proposed . . .. She has passed legislation . . .. Hillary has been a powerful advocate for . . .. Her commitment to supporting . . . was hailed by the New York Times as "frank talk. . .." Hillary is one of the original cosponsors . . .. Hillary is strongly committed to . . .. She introduced the . . .."
Now let me put these quotes in context to explain what I do, and do not, mean to suggest with them.
My limited point is simply that her "experience," like that of Senators Obama and McCain, is primarily "life experience" -- plus some useful (but not, standing alone, presidentially-qualifying) legislative experience. Her public interest work, life as First Lady, and brief senate career have been primarily a work of words -- the very thing for which she criticizes Senator Obama in her efforts to set herself apart as somehow more qualified than he is.
That is not to say that she has not spoken out on and written about important issues, volunteered for and otherwise contributed to the staff and boards of non-profit organizations, voted for and otherwise aligned herself with legislation -- much of which I would have agreed with, and even found commendable.
[March 14: However, a little caution may be in order in accepting her assertions of credit for some of what she claims. See Nicholas Johnson, "Hillary Makes Up 'Experience,'" March 14, 2008 (according to a Boston Globe expose, those who actually created and worked to pass the children's health program called SCHIP are irritated by, and refuting, her taking credit for it. Her Web site says that as First Lady "She was instrumental in designing and championing" the program. That blog entry also provides Time magazine's comparable take with regard to her Ireland and Kosovo claims).]
The reason there are ellipses in the place of subject matter in the excerpts above is not because I think those subjects irrelevant or unworthy. It is because the point I wish to make is that each, however commendable, involves speaking and writing. What "championed," "fighting" or "working for" mean in the legislative context is writing and speaking. They mean assigning staff members responsibility for coming up with new legislation (or merely signing on to bills authored by others), questioning witnesses testifying during sub-committee meetings, and talking to colleagues. They do not even necessarily mean that any legislation was ever enacted.
Senators make speeches -- some are creative and courageous speeches, some are lackluster and corrupt speeches, some are speeches they have actually written themselves (though this is rare) and others are merely speeches read from texts provided by staff members or lobbyists. (I have written Senators' speeches on behalf of clients.) But the activity in which senators are engaged, the "experience" they are gaining when they are "fighting" for this or that, is speaking experience.
Clearly, such legislative experience is not insignificant. It's useful experience for a president to have had. It's just not all the experience a president needs.
We take our politics seriously in Iowa.
So prior to the Iowa caucuses I tried to think through a set of "neutral principles" for comparing presidential candidates, and then summarized them in an op ed that was headlined, "Qualities to Keep in Mind When Picking a President" (Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 22, 2008; reproduced in the blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Op Ed: Caucus Choices Analysis," December 22, 2008).
Here are some excerpts from that column:
• Forget "electability." Any Democratic Party nominee is electable in 2008. (Although Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's high negatives create some risk.) Consider their ability to govern.
Experience at everything
All have "experience" at something. But a president needs experience at everything. Who has the broadest, deepest range of experience?
An American president is policy wonk in chief as well as commander in chief. Federal personnel director as well as national cheerleader. They must maintain our economy while improving our foreign relations. Above all, they must have superior, large-institution administrative skills and experience.
When they negotiate and deal with other major institutions it gives them credibility as well as real understanding if they've worked within them: Congress, cabinet positions, municipal and state governments, international organizations, and negotiations with foreign leaders.
We don't have a school for presidents. There's no parliamentary system to provide the ultimate prime ministers both administrative and legislative experience.
Quality rankings
So here are the qualities I'm looking for . . ..
• Experience administering large institutions (state or large city governments, corporations [cabinet departments]) . . ..
• A "people person" with charisma or down-home manner, sense of humor (including self-deprecation), or what Molly Ivins called "Elvis" . . ..
• The understanding and credibility earned by working inside both Washington's executive and legislative branches [cabinet departments, independent regulatory commissions, House and Senate] . . ..
• A willingness to put forward courageous, "best policy" proposals, rather than "starting off backing up" . . ..
• Experience working inside international organizations (e.g., U.N., World Bank). . ..
• Understanding of the elements and process of citizen empowerment [e.g., community organizing]. . ..
• An understanding of foreign policy (as distinguished from administering it) . . ..
• An ability to work with, but an independence from, special interest money and influence (the "Washington Establishment") . . ..
However, Clinton's strength in this department is her weakness. She and Bill could probably name all of their 4,000 presidential appointees in one evening without notes. But part of the reason for their millions from corporate lobbyists and PACs is the Washington Establishment's expectation of another pro-corporate, business-as-usual Clinton administration.
• Experience negotiating with foreign leaders . . ..
• Champion of the underdog . . ..
The column included evaluations by these standards of what was then a large field of candidates. While it did not conclude with an endorsement, New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson obviously was well ranked.
He had, after all, experience in state government (as a governor), federal executive branch government (cabinet; Secretary of Energy), legislative (U.S. House of Representatives), international organizations (U.N. Ambassador), and negotiation (more than one successful release of hostages from hostile countries).
Senators in general, this year's crop of finalists, and Senator Hillary Clinton in particular, do not score very well by these standards -- certainly not well enough for her legitimately to be able to argue that she is "tested" and "qualified" to be president (and "commander-in-chief") while Senator Obama, by contrast, just "doesn't have the necessary experience."
She has not been a mayor, governor, or cabinet officer. She's never served in a state legislature or the U.S. House. She's never held a position in an international organization. She has never (so far as I know) been involved in hostage, trade, treaty or other international negotiations. She's never served in the military or worked in a civilian capacity in the Defense Department. So far as I know, as First Lady she did not even have the clearance to see classified documents that I had as U.S. Maritime Administrator. She's never run a major state or federal government department, or even functioned as a corporate CEO.
I do not assert that Senator Obama is more qualified, or has more experience, than has Senator Clinton -- nor, it should be noted, does he make that claim. Frankly, I think that while their life, and legislative, experiences are somewhat different, they are not, to borrow a phrase, "differences that make a difference" when it comes to their qualifications as a potential president.
If anything, Senator Obama has three additional relevant categories of experience that she does not. One is state legislative experience. (Not incidentally, when his years in the Illinois legislature are added to his years in the U.S. Senate he ends up having more years of legislative experience than she has.) Second, his race, his ties to Kenya, his having lived in Indonesia and among the diverse populations of Hawaii, exceed in my view -- but at least equal -- the ability to improve America's relations abroad that Senator Clinton may have gained from "traveling in 80 countries." Finally, and for reasons I won't take space, and your time, to lay out now, I put enormous weight on his community organizing experience that I believe underlies much, if not all, of what makes him qualified to be president, an authentic agent of change, and so attractive to millions.
But I'm not making the argument, and accepting responsibility for sustaining the burden of proof, that he is more qualified to be president than she -- only that I think Senator Clinton is not creditable and cannot be taken seriously when she asserts that she should be the preferred choice because she is so much more qualified than he is.
(Nor do I find persuasive the demographic arguments put forward by the Clinton camp:
The issue cannot be constructively characterized as how they've done, one-on-one, running against each other in Democratic Party primaries. It means little that she has, sometimes, drawn more heavily than he from natural Democratic Party demographic groups -- whites, without college education, earning under $50,000 a year (as he has drawn more heavily than her from others). Remember that it is Democratic Party primaries we're talking about here.
The question should be: What evidence is there that -- in a match-up between Senators Obama and McCain -- Democratic Party voters and Independents who voted in primaries for Senator Clinton would vote for Senator McCain rather than Senator Obama? I know of none (although I do have a smattering of anecdotal evidence regarding Independents and Democrats who have told me their first preference is Senator Obama, but that if Senator Clinton ends up as the nominee they will vote for Senator McCain). I don't see that it makes a lot of difference, standing alone, how demographic groups have aligned between Senators Clinton and Obama in a given Democratic Party primary. Moreover, most of the polls I have seen indicate pretty consistently that in one-on-one match-ups with Senator McCain, Senator Obama beats him by more than does Senator Clinton -- most recently 12 points to 6 points.)
There are two things she's done that might be thought of as quasi-administrative in nature.
(1) One was the assignment she had, such as it was, to come up with a health care plan for the Clinton Administration. As an "administrator" of that assignment her failed performance ranked with President Bush's administrative skills with Katrina and management of the Iraq War. Even Senator Clinton acknowledges on her Web site, "As everyone knows, Hillary's fight for universal health coverage did not succeed."
(2) The other is her administration of her current presidential campaign. Even her cheerleader-in-chief, her husband and former president Bill Clinton, acknowledges it has been a disaster. Starting off with more money from lobbyists and PACs than any other candidate in either party (I believe), and one of the most powerful political organizations of the 20th Century, with predictions all around that it was hers to lose -- Senator Obama, coming out of nowhere, has been able to amass more state victories (12 in a row at one point), virtually all caucus victories, more popular votes, and more elected delegates (currently about a 150 delegate margin). Her staff has been bickering, some have left, money has been squandered, she had to loan her campaign $5 million of her own money (while continuing to refuse to make public -- as Senator Obama has -- the tax returns that might indicate where that money came from), the campaign's focus continues to shift from "experience" to "solutions" to "tears" to "humor" ("Saturday Night Live" and "The Daily Show") to, now that she's finally "found her voice," a slash and burn, throw everything including the kitchen sink at Senator Obama whether it's true or not, negative campaign.
This is not just a very thin resume for someone aspiring to assume the most complex administrative job in the world, it's also not very reassuring.
(By contrast, David Wilhelm, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign chairman who has endorsed Senator Obama, says of the Senator's efforts: “'He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her, . . .. I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model' of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising." Katharine Q. Seelye, "Bill Clinton Campaign Chair Goes for Obama,"New York Times: The Caucus, February 13, 2008, 1:58 p.m.
She repeatedly refers to her "35 years of experience" -- essentially a reference to everything she's done since leaving law school -- without ever specifying what it was, not to mention how much of it was truly relevant to the work of a president (and, if so, why).
Clearly, she does have seven years' legislative experience as a U.S. Senator -- far less than Senator McCain, but not significantly less than Senator Obama. She has had the "life experience" (including law practice and service on boards) I've already mentioned.
But how much credit can she claim as the spouse of a governor and a president? Based on my own experience, not much.
Do you gain insights and anecdotes from being around (or married to) another? Absolutely. But there is an enormous difference between having decisional responsibility, and merely offering comfort and sympathy to someone who does.
I served as a law clerk to a U.S. Court of Appeals judge (the 5th Circuit's Judge John R. Brown) and a U.S. Supreme Court justice (Justice Hugo Black). (I've just returned from a reunion dinner in the Supreme Court building with other Justice Black clerks and family.) Those experiences, and my ability to extrapolate from them in imagining what other judges do, gives me insights into the judicial process I might otherwise not have. Do they qualify me to be a Court of Appeals judge or Supreme Court justice? Of course not. Would they be of some marginal use were I to be a judge? I suppose.
My wife, Mary Vasey, is one of the nation's experts on "alternative education." She was one of the first to be picked for the national faculty of the Coalition of Essential Schools. She was an early faculty member of Metro High School in Cedar Rapids -- which twice won the U.S. President's award as one of the nation's best high schools. She helped plan the Iowa City alternative high school, Tate. Having retired from Metro, her love of the work, and skill at doing it, is such that she continues to volunteer her time at Tate.
I've lived with her for nearly 20 years. I've heard her after-school stories of what we call in church, the "joys and sorrows" of an alternative high school teacher. I've attended alternative high school events over the years, and come to know other teachers. Mary and I usually talk policy and politics at breakfast, and often that discussion involves K-12 issues.
Does my having been a spouse of an alternative high school teacher qualify me to be one? Not on your life; of that I am unalterably confident. I wouldn't last a week.
Similarly, I don't think being the wife of a governor provides the experience of being a governor, and I don't think being the wife of a president is the equivalent of the experience of being a president.
Think about it. If she were still Senator Hillary Rodham, if she did not have the name recognition that comes from what she went through as Bill Clinton's wife, if she did not have his last name, would she now be one of the entrants, let alone one of the two finalists, in the Democratic Party's presidential primary process based on her "experience"? I don't think so.
What about her foreign policy "experience"? "I've traveled to 80 countries," she tells us. What she fails to tell us is what she did in those countries. Was she there as a U.S. Ambassador, embassy employee, military officer or even Peace Corps worker? As the United States' U.N. Ambassador? As a U.N. (or other international organization's) official? Was she engaged in negotiations of any kind -- whether on behalf of American corporations, improved trade relations, seeking the release of hostages, or to obtain treaties? So far as I know, the answer is "no" to all of the above. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe these were, for the most part, "showing the flag," publicity and ceremonial visits.
President Kennedy once introduced himself as "the man who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to France." Notwithstanding that exalted billing, I don't think Jackie Kennedy would have suggested even that role qualified her to run for president.
I've traveled to something like 40 countries. Some have been holidays -- although even then I often would call on public officials or others related to my work. Other trips have involved working with foreign officials on official government business. Frankly, I would not begin to suggest that my 40 countries made me half as qualified to be president as Senator Clinton's 80 countries. I wouldn't even suggest it would qualify me to be an Assistant Secretary of State.
Has her travel been of some marginal benefit in contributing to her understanding other cultures and nations? I would assume so. That's one of the values of travel -- for anyone who's sufficiently humble and observant. I just think she's making far, far too much of it.
I would never say any of the three senators is "unqualified" to be president. I just don't think any of them -- especially Senator Clinton -- can make the case that they do have the experience and qualifications to be president while one of the others does not.
I think the following "Saturday Night Live" sketch from March 8, 2008, puts in perspective Senator Clinton's portrayal of the alleged contrast between her experience and that of Senator Obama. (If you get an "error" message in using the video below, use the link above.)
And see also, Matthew Yglesias, "Experience Gap,"The Atlantic.com, March 11, 2008, 9:42 a.m., which reproduces a memorandum from Greg Craig, former director, State Department Policy Planning staff (e.g., "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed 'the Commander-in-Chief test' is simply not supported by her record" -- following which he details the supporting data.)
Cold Open: An Unfair and Deceptive Message from Hillary Clinton
It's 3 A.M. and the phone rings somewhere in our nation's capital. President Obama calls Hillary in desperate need of help. Iran has developed a nuclear device with the help of the axis of evil. They've lied to him, and now he's in a blind, unreasoning panic born from inexperience. What's Obama to do?
Hillary tells Obama to man up. Russia will back down or risk violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Hillary insists that the Secretary of State can explain, but Obama doubts that Secretary Sharpton can, admitting this wasn't his best appointment. Obama thanks Hillary and apologizes for calling every night, glossing over her request for payment if he's going to keep calling. He would trade all of his superficial charm and rock star appeal for an iota of Hillary's capabilities.
Hillary admits that what we've just witnessed is a dramatization, based on facts. Well, not facts, but what she calls specious campaign talking points. If you want a better future for our country, it's not too late. Call or write the offices of the Democratic National Committee. With enough pressure, we can convince party leaders that they've made a huge mistake. And one more thing... Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!
EXTRA - MISSISSIPPI UPDATE - The Washington Post is reporting this morning [March 12, 7:00 a.m.] that, with 90% of Mississippi's precincts reporting, Senator Obama received 60% of the votes (221,874) and Senator Clinton received 38% (142,671). This translates into 17 delegates for Senator Obama (for a total of 1596) and 11 for Senator Clinton (bringing her total to 1484) -- a 112 delegate margin for Senator Obama.
The New York Times reports [March 12, 7:20 a.m.] that with 99% of the precincts reporting Barack Obama has 60.7% of the votes (253,441) and Hillary Rodham Clinton has 37.1% (154,852)-- and says the 33 pledged delegate allocation has yet to be determined. It calculates the elected delegate totals to be 1348 Obama to 1210 Clinton -- a 138 vote margin for Senator Obama -- while reporting the Associated Press' calculation to be 1385 to 1237, a 148-vote spread. With super delegates it's 1510 to 1403 (107 spread) from the Times and 1596 to 1484 (a 112 spread) from the AP.
EXTRA - WYOMING UPDATE (March 8, 2008, 8:41 p.m. CT): With 100% Precincts Reporting Obama has 61% of the Votes, Clinton 38%.
Wyoming Democratic Caucus
Candidate. . . . Votes. .% Barack Obama. . .5,378. .61 Hillary Clinton. 3,312. .38 Other. . . . . . . .70. .1 Key: Red Checkmark Winner Precincts: 100% | Updated: 9:41 PM ET | Source: AP [as reported on Washington Post Web site] Delegates at stake: 12; Obama 7, Clinton 5
